BattleForums Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Grosse Pointe, MI Age: 21 Posts: 3,408
| Half of me was reluctant to write this letter out of concern that Speaker may be one of those organizations who do wicked things for the sole purpose of gaining attention. But given Speaker's track record, I have concluded that I hope it enjoys its new distinction as one of the most insufferable beguilers who ever lived, so I've decided to proceed. Before I start, however, I should state that to understand what its particularly picayunish form of exhibitionism has encompassed as a movement and as a system of rule, we have to look at its historical context and development as a form of unstable politics that first arose in early twentieth-century Europe in response to rapid social upheaval, the devastation of World War I, and the Bolshevik Revolution. Speaker's violations of the rules of decency are so fatuous they beggar belief. Nevertheless, I can state with absolute certainty that Speaker's helots are suckers for rallying chants, regurgitated, standardized slogans, and other behavioral reinforcements. That's the current situation, and if you have any doubt about the reality of it, then you haven't been paying close enough attention to what's been happening in the world. I, speaking as someone who is not an ophidian killjoy, plan to burn away social illness, exploitation, and human suffering. This is a choice I have made; your choice is up to you. But let me remind you that ancient Greek dramatists discerned a peculiar virtue in being tragic. Speaker would do well to realize that they never discerned any virtue in being snarky.
I can say one thing about Speaker. It understands better than any of us that psychological impact is paramount -- not facts, not anybody's principles, not right and wrong. I'm not suggesting that we behave likewise. I'm suggesting only that if natural selection indeed works by removing the weakest and most genetically unfit members of a species, then Speaker is clearly going to be the first to go. I want to fight for what is right. That may seem simple enough, but we must work together to sound the bugle of liberty. What can you do to help? For starters, you might want to initiate meaningful change. I personally derive great satisfaction in doing that sort of thing because Speaker teaches workshops on totalitarianism. Students who have been through the program compare it to a Communist re-education camp.
Speaker's statements such as "Speaker is entitled to replace love and understanding with credentialism and cannibalism" indicate that we're not all looking at the same set of facts. Fortunately, these facts are easily verifiable with a trip to the library by any open and honest individual. Uncouth rakes are more susceptible to Speaker's brainwashing tactics than are any other group. Like water, their minds take the form of whatever receptacle it puts them in. They then lose all recollection that you don't have to say anything specifically about Speaker for it to start attacking you. All you have to do is dare to imply that we should enlighten the mind of Man and improve him as a rational, moral, and social being.
I don't have time to go into this in as much detail as I should, but the irony is that Speaker's most fickle epithets are also its most mendacious. As the French say, "Les extremes se touchent." Before Speaker initiated a communism flap to help promote its lousy, goofy beliefs, people everywhere were expected to explain a few facets of this confusing world around us. Nowadays, it's the rare person indeed who realizes that Speaker's criticisms of my letters have never successfully disproved a single fact I ever presented. Instead, its criticisms are based solely on its emotions and gut reactions. Well, I refuse to get caught up in Speaker's "I think … I believe … I feel" game. Speaker can't fool me. I've met sadistic yutzes before, so I know that it's quite easy for Speaker to declaim my proposals. But when is it going to provide an alternative proposal of its own? The answer is rather depressing but I'll tell you anyway. The answer begins with the observation that Speaker's slaves are just as bad as Speaker is, if not worse. Sadly, lack of space prevents me from elaborating further. Speaker is addicted to the feeling of power, to the idea of controlling people. Sadly, it has no real concern for the welfare or the destiny of the people it desires to lead.
I wish that one of the innumerable busybodies who are forever making "statistical studies" about nonsense would instead make a statistical study that means something. For example, I'd like to see a statistical study of Speaker's capacity to learn the obvious. Also worthwhile would be a statistical study of how many pretentious brutes realize that I am fed up to the back teeth with Speaker's stuck-up long-term goals. Don't make the mistake of thinking otherwise. Speaker does, and that's why I unequivocally believe that I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke it to teach the next generation how to hate -- and whom to hate. My views, of course, are not the issue here. The issue is that it has a problem not only with civil rights but also with the legal responsibility and accountability as to what is considered appropriate behavior. If you find that fact distressing then you should help me snap its vassals out of their trance. Either that, or you can crawl into a corner and lament that you got yourself born in the wrong universe. Don't expect your sobbing to do much good, however, because Speaker somehow manages to get away with spreading lies (anyone who resists it deserves to be crushed), distortions (cannibalism, wife-swapping, and the murder of infants and the elderly are acceptable behavior), and misplaced idealism (it's the best thing to come along since the invention of sliced bread). However, when I try to respond in kind, I get censored faster than you can say "philoprogenitiveness". Speaker is so insidious, I could turn to a life of crime. But don't take my word for it; ask any selfish theologaster you happen to meet. You know what? Speaker wants to relabel millions of people as "rabid". Faugh.
An old joke tells of the optimist who falls off a 60-story building and, as he whizzes past the 35th floor, exclaims, "So far, so good!" But it is not such blind optimism that causes Speaker's supporters to think that they can preach hatred. In Speaker's understrappers' rush to join the crowd, they failed to observe that in asserting that it is known for its sound judgment, unerring foresight, and sagacious adaptation of means to ends, it demonstrates an astounding narrowness of vision. It would be charitable of me not to mention that even the most rigorous theoretical framework Speaker could put forward would not leave it in the position of generalizing with the certainty to which it is prone in its squibs. Fortunately, I am not beset by a spirit of false charity, so I will instead maintain that it is probably safe to assume that it runs at the first sign of trouble. As long as I live, I will be shouting this truth from rooftops and doing everything I can to stop this insanity. I'll let you in on a little secret: if anything, Speaker is terrified that there might be an absolute reality outside itself, a reality that is what it is, regardless of its wishes, theories, hopes, daydreams, or decrees.
What's the difference between Speaker's stooges and unreasonable anthropophagi? If you answered "nothing", then go to the front of the class; you're absolutely right. I am shocked and completely appalled that Speaker could voice the types of gross lies and historical misrepresentations that it so often does. While this lighthearted statement adds sorely needed humor to an otherwise tense situation, Speaker wants to provide the pretext for police-state measures. Why it wants that, I don't know, but that's what it wants.
You see, Speaker wants to produce an army of mindless insects who will obey its every command. To produce such an army, it plans to destroy people's minds using either drugs or an advanced form of lobotomy. Whichever approach it takes, I recently heard Speaker tell a bunch of people that it is as innocent as a newborn lamb. I can't adequately describe my first reaction to this notion; I simply don't know how to represent uncontrollable laughter in text. It may be coincidence that Speaker's warnings impose a narrow theological agenda on secular society. It may be coincidence that they lead us, lemminglike, over the precipice of self-destruction. And it may be coincidence that they prosecute, sentence, and label people as treasonous, dotty agitators without the benefit of any evidence whatsoever. But that's a lot of coincidence!
Having already explained that there will be passive-aggressive things said on both sides of this issue in the near future, let me now state that we can all have daydreams about Happy Fuzzy Purple Bunny Land, where everyone is caring, loving, and nice. Not only will those daydreams not come true, but Speaker is extraordinarily brazen. We've all known that for a long time. However, its willingness to move increasingly towards the establishment of a totalitarian Earth sets a new world record for brazenness. In essence, the really interesting thing about all this is not that hostility is a primary component of Speaker's behavior. The interesting thing is that if there's an untold story here, it's that if it continues to beat plowshares into swords, I will clearly be obliged to do something about it. And you know me: I, for one, never neglect my obligations. Honest people will admit that Speaker's personal attacks are not just retroactively ineffective but proactively inert. Concerned people are not afraid to report as best as possible the facts and circumstances surrounding Speaker's prurient, besotted publications. And sensible people know that Speaker's lies come in many forms. Some of its lies are in the form of undertakings. Others are in the form of reports. Still more are in the form of folksy posturing and pretended concern and compassion.
If the human race is to survive on this planet, we will have to suggest the kind of politics and policies that are needed to restore good sense to this important debate. You may balk at this, but if one could get a Ph.D. in Libertinism, Speaker would be the first in line to have one. Is Speaker's lack of intelligence genetic or the result of too much time spent with unambitious misanthropes? The answer is obvious if you understand that Speaker will probably respond to this letter just like it responds to all criticism. It will put me down as "oligophrenic" or "morally crippled". That's its standard answer to everyone who says or writes anything about it except the most fawning praise. Speaker's a psychologically defective organization. It's what the psychiatrists call a constitutional psychopath or a sociopath. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
__________________
Xbox Live: Zaku05
Zaku
<Immortality>
Skullcrusher
|
Sponsored Links 
Linear Mode
